All Posts by Shroom_Mage

I'm actually concerned about the hybrid nature of the gold currency in GW2 as it has been planned and showed.

Because selling gems for gold means that the gold currency will be always partially real money, even for a player who didn't touched the shop once in his life.

Is like playing poker or black jack... because indeed is a game with some real money, even if you are just shooting fireballs at goblins... and then, having to do do with money, will it be a money-game or a job?

Also the in-game economy will be partially influenced by the real local economy pertinent to the local server, thus e.g. in a european server, will a player from greece/italy/spain/pourtugal feel the weakness of its economy partially reflected in his in game transactions, if compared to a player from scandinavia/germany/uk? i'm wondering.

This real/virtual blurry boundary the gold currency will have in game is a little creepy.

I never played Eve, but if it is similar to that one planned for gw2, so are my thoughts on the nature of its economy.

This concern is lessened significantly because gems cannot be sold for real money. It's a one way transaction, and so gems have no cash value. They can only be used to buy virtual goods in GW2.

"Cashing out" requires the use of (shady) third-party services and can get you permanently banned.

This is why I think the purchase of physical items with gems should never be allowed.

In the recent Yogscast WvW video, Lewis mentions a "Fast Cast Ground Target" option. This option allows the player to press a ground-targeted skill only one time to cast it at the location of the mouse cursor instead of pressing it once to enter targeting mode and a second time to actually cast. This made me realize how easily two other options could be implemented that I think fans of certain other action MMOs might appreciate. Before I start, none of these options change the functionality of targeting or spell aiming. This is merely a camera preference. The most significant change (the fast casting mode) is already implemented.

Crosshair Mode

When in mouselook mode (holding right-click by default), the cursor is centered and changes to look like a semi-transparent crosshair of sorts. When in this mode, left-mouse allows you to click on things instead of moving your forward. That is, it functions as it does when not in mouselook mode.

Mouselook Toggle

Changes mouselook mode from "hold" to "toggle". By default, holding right-click changes to mouselook mode. With this option enabled, right-clicking once enters mouselook mode, and right-clicking a second time exits mouselook mode. That's all this option does.

Mixing these two options with Fast Cast Ground Target could give the camera control a slightly different feel. Players used to MMOs with manual aiming systems would likely want to enable all three. Some players might only want one or two. I know a lot of people hold right-click nearly all the time. Mouselook Toggle might be useful for them even without the other options. Crosshair Mode makes it easier to aim ground-targeted abilities when in mouselook mode. Fast Cast Ground Target is already in the game and quite convenient as Yogscast has shown.

Which combination of these three options would you use? Is there a way they could be improved? I'd like to see what sort of interest there is in these features as I'll probably make a thread about them as soon as I can once the official forums are open.

This would be a bad idea. A video card can be sold by the consumer at or just under the MSRP. This would indirectly give monetary value to gold, as permitted by ArenaNet. In other words, it's a loophole that allows you to sell gold for real money without getting banned.

While I won't deny that goldsellers will exist, the average player will have little incentive to farm gold for gems unless he wants something in the gem store or just wants to store his gold as gems in case of inflation. It's a bad idea to give a player a way to "cash out" his gems. It creates a different environment and puts pressure on the player to play the game in a way opposed to "fun" in order to maximize real world profits.

There is no autobalace, and even if there is then you can probably set the server to not do so.

There is definitely autobalance. It functions similarly to TF2 autobalance, except that during the warning it gives players the option to switch manually.

There might be a way to turn it off, but I hope not. Most players don't understand why such features are absolutely necessary for a fun game and most would likely turn it off. Repeated facerolls due to unbalanced teams isn't fun for anyone participating. Turning off autobalance so that you an your friends can win repeatedly with no effort equates to griefing.

EDIT: It should be obvious, but autobalance does not happen in tournaments.

The two things that really stand out as being different from WAR are supply and safe zones.

WAR didn't have anything vaguely resembling supply. If the keep wasn't attacked for around five minutes the door would instantly reset. In GW2, starving a keep of supply by eliminating supply routes (the tower in the video had no supply routes) is extremely effective. They can't repair the door or walls, and they can't build siege weapons. You can't just turtle in a keep all day and expect to hang onto it.

Safe zones are another big deal. In WAR, a lot of keeps were a short walk from a friendly outpost. This made it too easy to zerg keeps, and there was nothing you could do about those safe zones, to which players often fled. Keeps in GW2 have towns inside of them. The ability to respawn in one of those towns is an upgrade that has to be purchased, and if the keep is taken, you completely lose that spawn point. It makes territory control much more dynamic than in WAR.

Maybe one day everyone will understand and accept that sandbox and theme park are two completely separate subgenres and stop complaining, "There's nothing to do in this sandbox game!" or "There's no player-created content in this theme park game!"

It's like complaining that that there's no FFA Deathmatch in TF2. It's just a poorly thought out suggestion.

As far as I know this only happens on a per server basis. That is, each server has an "overflow" version of it. I haven't heard anything about it happening for each zone, but I'm not sure.

Originally posted by UOvet

Is this different from how SWTOR does it? I know a lot of people in SWTOR complain the game doesn't feel like an MMO because the zones hold like 10 people it seems.

The gameplay in SWTOR tends to break down when there are too many people in an area because the game is designed in a way that creates competition for quest objectives which causes players to resent one another.

Dynamic events and phased harvesting nodes do not have this effect. Content can become trivial if there are way too many people around, but you're never robbed of your ability to play or rewards as is the case in of most MMOs. Because of this, the player limits can be based on what the server can handle instead of trying to "optimize your personal gameplay experience".

They talk about removing the boring things about MMOs but this game isn't even an MMO. The economy is basically non-existant compared to other games, there's no exploration and the entire game is instanced. They want everyone to feel like a "hero", and everyone to feel like what they are doing actually matters. Instancing everything is counter intuitive to this.

0/10

On the off chance that you aren't trolling, GW2 (unlike GW1) has a persistent world just like nearly every other MMO. Events are not in instances.

Well I think this thread has anwserd my question(aswell as spin off into other areas) and its helped me decide.

I'll try GW2, but I won't be dropping any money on it yet. Tera, aside from the... questionable designs of some characters, has the combat I've been searching for(Like what kept me playing DDO for so long)

I absolutly am finished with the tab-tab-mash key-tab style combat, and I am sick of having my char move independent of the camera(As it looks and sounds like gw2) with the 'option' of holding down the right mouse to freelook(Bad idea imo)

Teara's control/combat system was win-win, even WITH the animation locks(It made sense,as said before, was a trade off, you can't expect to swing madly spinning, yet have fluid control and do said spins and such while also keeping balance while zipping 180% around, can you?)

From the looks of it, GW2 will simply be a cooldown race game.. as in the guy with the skill that cools down first will likley win the battle, since facings and 'control' don't have much else to do with it. Minimizes the challange when I can just spam a skill willy nilly and have it hit my 'tabbed target', and ontop of all that, just not allowing 'hard' mouselook kinda kills the expereince for me in many games. (Its just one step down from a pnc game imo)

I am not trying to cause a flame war about the merits of either game, I will try GW2 but as far as it goes NOW, with what ive seen/heard/learned, tera just has a much more apealing combat/control system imo.

Why did you even make this thread? You had obviously already made up your mind. You can't be bothered to research GW2's combat on your own, you already prefer Tera's combat, and you completely disregard what people say about GW2's combat in favor of your own preconceptions that it's a "cooldown race game". Don't ask people what the combat's like if you're going to ignore them and end the thread with the same misconceptions you started with.

Don't see your point here. Paying real money for in game gold = P2W to some people. Or is that too complex for you to understand?

I know you said "to some", but when you mix it in with "I'd rather not have to buy a game that is P2W" it makes it a little hard to tell what you're trying to say.

I hope you don't personally think chronoscrolls are P2W, because that's almost exactly how gems work in GW2. Some people say that counts as P2W, too, but...

Where exactly are you going with this?

That's exactly why I said it. People are accusing GW2 for being P2W for the same thing. So then TERA to those people would be considered P2W, so I stated, if I'm going to play a P2W game anyway then I might as well play one that I don't have to buy. Which was refering to Vindictus as stated earlier.

You're mixing in "some people's" opinion with your own which is making your posts really vague. You're making fairly objective statements, but it really does look like you're suggesting that you agree with "people" that think these games qualify as P2W.

Your personal opinion doesn't make much difference to me, but that type of posting is going to bait out fanboys like crazy, as we've seen. "Some people think X, and if I was one of them..." Yeah.

Are you kidding me? I think you need to stop accusing me of having no comprehension, grow up. Notice that to both of you, I never once did call you a name or say you're lacking in any kind of intelligence. Why go there? Why, cuz my opinion on a game is different than yours...says alot about you

This is what he said about it...

Originally posted by Sector13

And when I try to point something out that is legitamate you toss it aside like it doesn't matter. That is why fanboys are annoying, You said that it has FPS like controls and I am explaining that it doesn't technically, how is that negative? You generalize GW2 as being tab target as though it's exactly like WoW and Aion when others are explaining that it isn't. I'm just pointing out how your statements are flawed and you act like I am bashing TERA. Yes, limited controls are bad to me, but that wasn't the point of the discussion but like most fans you jump right to the "omg he's bashing TERA again" crap. It's almost like you people never had real criticizim in your lives before.

This. This is what I'm talking about! You took that one highlighted part out of context. Reading comprehension tells you that he isn't saying it's objectively bad. He's saying he doesn't care for it. That's what the "to me" part means. And for the record, I began typing my post before he submitted that one.

You just keep taking one tiny part of an entire paragraph and respond to it as though it's the entirety of our posts. I never said you tried to insult us! I only said you were getting defensive about Tera when nobody was so much as criticizing it.

EDIT: Let me summarize approximately what happened. I'll try my best to not make anyone sound like an idiot. Tell me if this sounds inaccurate.

R.I.O.T: "Tera's combat system is FPS-like."Sector13: "It isn't very FPS-like. I don't personally like it very much."R.I.O.T: "You're always bashing Tera."Shroom_Mage: "He isn't trying to bash Tera. You're being too defensive."R.I.O.T: "I never tried to insult you guys!"

If you think it's inaccurate, please summarize what actually happened.If you think it's accurate but unreasonable, then hopefully we've made progress.If you think this sounds both accurate and reasonable, then there's nothing more I can do.

EDIT2: What I'm trying to explain, by the way, is that this is a huge series of misunderstandings that went from bad to worse. Looking at your first post, I have to ask if you only watched the first portion of the video you were responding to. In the very beginning of the video, I can see how someone might think combat is like WoW. The second half of the video, and especially the end, shows you that combat is very different. If you watched the entire video and still disagree, then I give up on this entire thread. It's too hard to explain things to you without them being misinterpreted.

Aion and Rift have combat systems nearly identical to WoW's, and these are your examples? There is more to a combat system than whether or not it has targeting! Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Dragon Age, Guild Wars, Metroid Prime, Phantasy Star Online, and WoW all have targeting systems and none of them have even vaguely similar combat.

you know what? No sense in arguing over something that I can only see in videos, I have to wait like most to actually play the game. Until then GW2 combat just seems less appealing than TERAs, that is my opinion...until I try it for myself.

I guess I can't add anything if you absolutely refuse to so much as acknowledge a single one of my points.

Originally posted by R.I.O.T

To Sector13 it is bad thing, anything about TERA is a bad thing. Do you even know how many times this guy posts in TERA forumns??? (Everything negative btw)What I'm saying... is it may do so but has its purpose, why are you going out of your way to make a point I already got for someone else? Some people agree its a bad things and won't play TERA cuz of that sole reason...

I don't care what his opinion on Tera actually is. He expressed that he preferred other systems. So what? It doesn't change his argument. He never said it was bad in this thread. He only expressed that it wasn't for him.

Do you really think that the only thing he's trying to explain is why the system is bad? Did you truly completely miss that he's trying to explain that Tera's combat is different from FPS-style games and not as similar as you were making it out to be?

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said GW2 didn't have a targeting system, and Sector13 never (in this thread) said that Tera's combat was inherently bad for being more restrictive. In his first post in this thread, he even said he likes where Tera is pointing MMOs. Where the hell do you get that he's trying to bash the game?

Stop being so defensive. We're not attacking Tera. We're not even criticizing the game, and yet you're putting up a brick wall.